1. We are of opinion that this reference was not necessary. There are two sets of decisions in the reports: In one set it is laid down that a person, who unlawfully interferes with the exercise of the property rights of another, commits an act in the nature of trespass to property, and is liable for damages in an action for trespass. In the other series of cases it is laid down that no suit lies for damages against a defendant for maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause instituting a civil action. As an illustration of the former class, reference may be made to the case of Bhut Nath Pal Mistry v. Chandra Benode Pal Chowdhury 16 Ind. Cas. 443 : 16 C.L.J. 34. As an illustration of the latter class, reference may be made to the cases of 'Bishun Singh v. A.W.N. Wyatt 11 Ind. Cas 729 : 14 C.L.J. 515 : 16 C.W.N. 540. and Mohini Mohan Misser v. Surendra Narain Singh 26 Ind. Cas 296 :42 C. 550 :1 C.L.J. 68 : 18 C.W.N. 1189. There is no conflict in principle between the two classes of cases, and the question in controversy really is, which set of decisions governs the present case on its special facts. That is not a matter for decision by a Fall Bench.
2. The result is that we remit the case to the Division Bench to be considered and disposed of on its own circumstances with reference to the two sets of decisions to which reference has been made.